Cited by 175Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityBacterial biofilms and quorum sensingFungal and yeast genetics research

Biofilm production and evaluation of antifungal susceptibility amongst clinical Candida spp. isolates, including strains of the Candida parapsilosis complex

Open access
Melo, Analy S., Bizerra, Fernando C., Freymüller, Edna, Arthington-Skaggs, Beth A., Colombo, Arnaldo L.·2011·Medical Mycology

Abstract

Candida cells can form biofilms that frequently are sources of infections and are less susceptible to antifungal drugs. Some authors have reported that Candida orthopsilosis and Candida metapsilosis isolates are not able to produce biofilms in vitro and there are no studies available on biofilm susceptibility for these species to antifungals. The aims of this study were to (i) quantify Candida spp. biofilms in vitro, and (ii) test the in vitro susceptibilities of Candida spp. biofilms to fluconazole (FLC) and amphotericin B (AMB). Isolates studied included four Candida albicans, six C. tropicalis, seven C. parapsilosis, eight C. orthopsilosis, and five C. metapsilosis. We compared two different methods to evaluate biofilm production, i.e., crystal violet (CV) staining and XTT-reduction assays (XTT). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to observe high, medium and low biofilm producing isolates screened by these two methods. To determine the minimum biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) for FLC and AMB, XTT-reduction assay was used to measure cell metabolic activity. Biofilm quantification by CV and XTT showed that C. tropicalis isolates were the highest biofilm producer, followed by C. albicans, C. parapsilosis, C. orthopsilosis and C. metapsilosis. Examination of SEM images revealed that the extent of biofilms formed by high, medium, and low producers was highly correlated to the results generated by CV assay. Biofilm of all the isolates evaluated were resistant to FLC (MBEC(80) ≥ 256 ug/ml) but, in general, susceptible to AMB, except for six C. parapsilosis strains (MBEC(80) ≥ 8 ug/ml).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/13693786.2010.530032

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MBECs in biofilm conditions were assessed by the XTT reduction assay as previously described, with minor modifications.

    “MBECs in biofilm conditions were assessed by the tetrazolium salt (XTT) reduction assay as previously described (66, 67), with minor modifications.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Melo, A. S., Bizerra, F. C., Freymüller, E., Arthington-Skaggs, B. A., & Colombo, A. L.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal de São Paulo (BR)
Corresponding author
Colombo, Arnaldo L.
Venue
Medical Mycology
Published
2011-04
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
253-262
ISSN
  • 0268-1218 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-3786
  • 1460-2709
OpenAlex
W2048732946
Cited by
175
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Mycology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (05/50778-1)
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
Keywords
Candida biofilms, antifungal susceptibility, Candida parapsilosis complex, Candida albicans, Candida tropicalis, Candida orthopsilosis, Candida metapsilosis, fluconazole resistance, amphotericin B susceptibility, minimum biofilm eradication concentration, crystal violet staining, biofilm quantification
MeSH terms
Amphotericin B, Antifungal Agents, Candida, Gentian Violet, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Staining and Labeling, Tetrazolium Salts, Fluconazole, Biofilms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review